I have seen a lot hate mail against subs lately. I would like to look into the SUB situation a bit further.

So far, the players I have seen who are against subs have been mostly vets and mods. They have sent out broadcasts stating they will end all naps with anyone who has a sub. They have also sent messages to players on this subject as well. I have heard the term "world police" used when describing their actions.

For anyone who has played the old BD they know that subs were abused heavily back then. Some alliances had more then 5 subs. Subs were even becomming somewhat powerful. They were ranking in the top 10 in some cases.

Currently in the new BD subs don't seem to be much of an issue. Most alliance leaders are struggeling with keeping in contact and leading 24 people. There are a few alliances with a sub. I have yet to see anyone with more then one sub. And most of the alliances with a sub use that sub to train people.

My question is this. Besides using a sub as a training station..... what is the difference between a NAP and a sub? What is the difference between one alliance hooking up with another alliance to knock out an alliance they both are at war with and an alliance using there sub to help them knock out another alliance? I seriously don't see a difference.

Some will argue that people use their subs as shields. Their subs take the brunt of an attack while the main alliance gears up for war. I can see this point, but a good leader knows how to do this without a sub. A good leader knows how to make diplomatic moves that will force other alliances into a conflict before he is ready to enter it.

I welcome all discussions on this.

i'll just go quickly through some diffrences between NAP and sub

-NAP is Non Agression Pact and is not considered allied just not attacking each other, i will think of them as allies not as in a NAP for the other.
- subs are not alowed to have their own allies just blindly following main alliances foreighn polecy
-Subs are being commanded by main alliance leader as it was a part of the alliance, therefor breaking the alliance cap
-subs often lead to inactivety because you have little to fight for since you are not gone win anyway, ur main might, but u will never!
-subs are often being used to learn new players(or atlast they say) but often end up like meat shields like you said, a real allie woulden't let that happend, but subs are being looked down at even by main..

there, now u got a few points to discuss ^,^

I agree with this point, but.... as I have seen... NAPs turn into diplomatic tools.. much like a sub... that are used to take out one alliance.



I will agree with this as well, but I don't see the problem here. If you are using your sub to train newbies then why would you want them going out and making naps and such?



This statement is entirely false. Subs also have leaders. Those leaders control the sub. I agree that the main alliance leader has a lot to do with the way the sub acts, but in the message that certain people sent out stating they will end a NAP if you don't get rid of your subs... how is that not controlling another alliance and there for breaking the alliance cap? The sub leader is the one that orders the sub followers. And this is evident in the old BD when some subs began to outrank the main alliance.




Simmen be careful with this statement.... I have been apart of alliances that use their as a training station and gateway into the main allaince. If what you say is true here... then what is the point of newb alliance? The reason people fight in subs is to show the main that they are ready to join their ranks. This actually helps influence both the sub and the main to fight their hearts out. I have witnessed this myself.

-


This is the part I agree with completely. I think it is wrong for alliances to use their subs as meat sheilds. But, if someone doesn't want to be used that way then don't join the sub. I do agree with this completely though.

i think this debate is pointless i can see why people like and dislike subs if people get sucked into the idea "hey why not be in a sub of a top alliance" that is their fault and no matter what we do there will always be subs

I think were the debate has changed dramaticaly since the old BD is the current number of players in an alliance. Back in the day having 3 subs was like having one now... and I agree that when used in the wrong manner this can be very annoying.

The one thing I don't agree on is this... that it is a loop hole. There isn't a loop hole here. A sub is just another alliance that you are friendly with. If an alliance came to you and said.. hey man we got your back. What would you like us to do? We are here to help you take out whatever alliance.... What would you say to them??? Of course you are going to say.. AWESOME! Here is what we want you to do... now.. according to your loop hole theory.. you have just made them your sub and you are abusing the rules. This is obsurd to me.


Don't get me wrong here. I am only deffending the idea of subs. I personaly am not a huge fan of them. Not because I think they are evil, because I think it is just too much for a leader to control his main alliance while keeping track of the sub. That is the only issue I have with it. I think it is a great tool for teaching noobs and I also think it is a great tool because it brings a little bit a of real life flare to the game.... It adds that element of anything can happen to the game.

unless all UA and example and statuate examples that alliances with subs will be conquered, extreme? yes, work? no idea, we'll see xD


with 24 members in a alliance almost every alliance must take in newbs(plz use newbs not noob, SO much difrence), so u can get in and we got adopt a newb program where u get into the comunity and get chanse to join real alliances, so there are always other ways

no it wont work and it isn't always the main making the sub i have seen decent alliances messaging an alliance an requesting to be a sub

thats my take on subs they are just like allies, but fighting under the same banner.

Subs=cowardice.


That's all I'm going to say